§ MR. CHAPLINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the case that the maintenance of the stations upon the Suez Canal, the regulation of its traffic, and, practically, the use of the Canal itself, is absolutely dependent upon its fresh water supply; whether that supply is not mainly, if not solely, derived by means of a fresh water canal from a point on the Nile adjacent to Cairo; whether the continuance of that supply is within the power of the authorities (for the time being) at Cairo; whether fresh water in adequate quantities can be provided from any other source; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken, or are taking, measures to command the necessary fresh water supply, and to insure the protection and maintenance of the Canal?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, a supply of fresh water is, of course, indispensable for the administration of the Suez Canal. My reply to the second and third branches of the Question is in the affirmative. In case of a temporary interruption of the supply from this source, means can be taken for insuring a sufficiency of water. This matter has been considered by Her Majesty's Government and the Directors of the Suez Canal Company.
§ MR. CHAPLINWill the hon. Baronet inform us by what means?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI do not think it desirable to answer that Question. I have no objection to inform the hon. Member privately.
§ MR. CHAPLINThen, Sir, I must take a course which I regret—that of moving that this House do now adjourn. I am bound to say that this question appears to me to be of such vital importance to the interests of the whole Empire that the House of Commons has a right to know how and by what means the supply of water which the Government authorities tell us is absolutely indispensable to the maintenance of the Suez Canal can be supplied. The Government have just informed us—[Interruption.]—I entreat the courtesy of hon. Members, for it is very seldom I have taken such a course as this, nor should I think of doing so except under a sense 44 of great responsibility. [Ironical cheers.] I can assure hon. Members I shall feel it my duty to press upon the House what I have to say on this question. Now, Sir, the Government have informed us that means can be taken with which they are satisfied; but I am bound to say that the results of the Government policy in Egypt up to the present time have not been such as to give me overwhelming confidence in them, and I ask permission to place before the House what I believe to be the facts of the situation. I am quite sure hon. Gentlemen on both sides will agree with me that this is a matter of immense importance. Sir, the Suez Canal runs from sea to sea, through a sandy waste, in which not one single drop of fresh drinking-water can be obtained except from a great distance many miles from one side, and not less than 500 miles from the other; consequently, Port Said, Ismailia, and Suez, and all sidings and stations on the Canal, are absolutely dependent for their supply on water conveyed to them from a great distance. These stations, with their staff and regular officials, are stationed at intervals all along the banks of the Canal, and they are absolutely dependent on this water which is conveyed to them. It is not too much to say that the use of this Canal would be practically destroyed if anything happened to the supply of fresh water to these stations. The sole supply at the present moment is obtained by means of the fresh water canal, through which water from the Nile is supplied direct to Ismailia and Suez and to the stations between those two places, from a point on the Nile quite close to Cairo itself. The remaining stations between Port Said and Ismailia are supplied in this way. There is a large pumping station at Ismailia, and from there the water is pumped into iron pipes, which, I am informed, can be easily injured or broken, and conveyed by these means to Port Said and from thence to other places. This fresh water canal, upon which the whole of the supply depends, itself receives, as I have said, its water from a point upon the Nile, a place called Boulak, quite close to Cairo itself. There are gates across the mouth of the Canal, which can be opened or shut at pleasure. There also are six locks on the Canal. But, whether that be so or not, it will be the easiest thing in the world, either by cutting the banks 45 of the Canal or by making an embankment across it, to divert the water upon which Port Said, Ismailia, Suez, and all the intervening stations, some 10 in number, absolutely and entirely depend. It is quite obvious that whatever Power is dominant in Cairo can, by cutting off the supply of fresh water, practically control and render impossible the working of the Canal. ["No, no!"] If hon. Gentlemen are prepared to dispute those facts, let them get up and do so; but if they are true, it is a matter of the most absolute importance. Arabi Bey is dominant at Cairo at the present time, and I believe the plain fact at the present time to be this—that with regard to the Suez Canal he is absolutely master of the situation, and that so far as British interests are centred in that great highway to India they are absolutely dependent on him. I may be wrong—I hope sincerely it is so, and if I am wrong, the Government will be able to point it out; but if I am right, we are now beginning to perceive some of the first results of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) appears to be desirous to dissociate the question of the Suez Canal from the question of Egypt, and I quite agree that, if possible, it would be most desirable to do so; but if it be true that the maintenance and working of the Canal is dependent on the supply of fresh drinking-water, and that that supply is dependent on Cairo, it seems to me to be obvious that the two things are inseparably interwoven and bound up together, and that, so far as British interests are concerned, the Suez Canal is Egypt and Egypt is the Suez Canal. In these circumstances, I wish to ask the Government three Questions. In the first place, I wish to ask whether I am not substantially correct in the facts I have placed before the House? ["No, no!"] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to get up and point out wherein I am wrong.
§ MR. WILLIAMSONThe hon. Gentleman asks what explanation can be given for the contradiction. ["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire is in possession of the Chair.
§ MR. WILLIAMSONagain rose amidst renewed cries of "Order!"
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member 46 rises to a point of Order he is entitled to do so.
§ MR. WILLIAMSONI rise to this point of Order, that the hon. Member is occupying the time of the House. [Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. CHAPLINPerhaps the hon. Member will do me the favour to cease his interruptions, which are not very courteous. The second Question which I wish to put is, How and why and in what manner it is that the Government have led us into this position; and if, which I suppose probably will be the case, they refer us to Papers for information, then I would ask them how they propose now to get us out of that position? The Government may depend upon it, if they are not careful to preserve for England the use of the Suez Canal without let or hindrance from any quarter of the world, they will raise a storm throughout the length and breadth of the country against which they would not be able to stand for a moment. I am doubly anxious to know on what conditions we are to enter into the Conference, which I do not hesitate to say I regard both with aversion and dislike? Supposing the decisions of the Conference are hostile to British interests and views in regard to Egypt, what then will be our position? When we invite the Powers of Europe to a Conference on the affairs of a country in which the interests of England have been acknowledged hitherto to be primary and paramount, I think we are treading upon very dangerous ground; and I hope that even yet, even at the eleventh hour, and after the announcement of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that we shall hear from the Government a full and frank explanation of their views. I must say that my anxiety with regard to the subject-matter of these Questions is not lessened when I remember how greatly in former days the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government depreciated the importance of the Suez Canal to England. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] I admit this—that the right hon. Gentleman stated the other night, in answer to a speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms), that it was a mistake to suppose he had ever done so, and informed the House that, according to the opinion of the authorities whom the Government had consulted, it would be very difficult in- 47 deed, and almost impossible, to injure the banks of the Canal. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] Well, I must say that utterance affords a most remarkable and striking contrast, not to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but to something which he deliberately wrote when Lord Beaconsfield was struggling with the difficulties and complications of the Eastern Question. At that time the right hon. Gentleman told us, in a speech at Oxford, which I well remember, that his great purpose and object for 18 months, night and day, week by week, month by month, had been to thwart and overthrow the policy of that great Statesman, whose foreign policy, I venture to think, is becoming at last, in the mind of the country, to be contrasted, not at least unfavourably, with that of the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the House would like to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to which I refer? ["No, no!"] Well, if hon. Members opposite do not like to hear it, I must try to make them. Here are the right hon. Gentleman's sentiments in regard to the Suez Canal—
It seems to me to be very doubtful whether confident reliance can be placed upon the Canal for our military communication with India under the varying and shifting contingencies of war … Given four-and-twenty hours—and then the right hon. Gentleman quotes a great authority, Mr. Dicey—And a company of sappers and miners in undisturbed possession of any portion of its sandy banks"—those banks that it was impossible to injure—"and damage may be done which would not only render the Canal impassable for the moment, but which could not be repaired for weeks or for months; and even if it were possible to hold a line of 100 miles of continuous fortification, it does not appear how the Canal could be secured against the furtive scuttling of ships. If it cannot, what becomes of all the costly care for the military custody of its banks? … Upon the whole, it would not surprise me to learn that the authorities of our War Department, aware of all the difficulties of the case, have already discounted them by laying their account for a return to the old route by the Cape.If that be so, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether they have now laid their account for a return to the old route by the Cape in case of war? I leave it to the House to say whether I have been correct or wrong in saying that in former days the right hon. Gentleman did to that extent depreciate the importance to England of the 48 Suez Canal. In regard to the present position of affairs, we have been told over and over again that we ought to wait for Papers, and I am glad there is a chance of such Papers being presented. No doubt Papers are essential to a judgment on the past policy of the Government, and it may be the duty of the House of Commons, when it has those Papers, to pass a censure on them. I pass no opinion on that point; but we have to deal with the present situation, and it is the exigencies of that situation that we have to consider. The facts are these. In a country where the interests of England have been acknowledged by all the nations of Europe as well as all the populations of the East to be primary and paramount, Englishmen and Englishwomen and English subjects and servants of the Crown—nay, more, even the Representative of the Sovereign herself—have been insulted, massacred, or outraged, without a finger being raised to defend them, within sight of Her Majesty's flag, within gunshot of her Fleet which floats to-day in the waters of Alexandria, a symbol no longer of power and might, but—alas! that we should have to say it in the English House of Commons—of the weakness and impotence of England. I might say much as to the fearful loss to British capital and industry which the continuance of this anarchy in Egypt must inevitably entail, and which, to a great extent, has already been entailed; but these interests, great as they are, are even of less importance than the blow to the prestige and fame of our power, which in itself constitutes, to my mind, a peril of enormous magnitude to our fortunes and to our Empire in the East. I think the House would do well to remember that this great massacre which horrified us all so much took place a fortnight ago. Since then we have been seeking from day to day for information from the Government—information only of the most legitimate character—and we have demanded a distinct and explicit assurance from the Government that protection shall at least be given to the subjects of the Queen. Our demands and inquiries have been made absolutely in vain; and following upon this day by day we have had accounts still more alarming and serious, and we have been met by empty nothings—by I will not say foolish, but the unmeaning phrases 49 from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs; but I think he and his Colleagues will discover ere long that there are limits to the patience and the tolerance even of the House of Commons. I want to remind the House that all these things are happening after months and months of warning to the Government, during which they have had more than ample time to meet any contingency that might arise, and to decide upon what was the wisest policy to pursue. There had been months of anxiety and alarm which have been felt by all sections of the people; and, although it may be true that they have been deluded from time to time by the specious assurances of the hon. Baronet and Members of the Cabinet, yet they are now beginning to discover that those assurances have all been worthless from the first. The right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) raised the question just now. He asked whether the Government had any correct information as to the number of people who had been massacred? I followed the right hon. Baronet; and I asked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he was able to say that the number of people massacred as given in the newspapers was not correct? He said he had no information. [Cries of "No, no!"]
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEI said nothing of the kind. I said I had nothing to add to the information which we have already given. I have already stated that the Representative of Her Majesty's Government had inquired as to the number of persons massacred, and the report sent to us puts the number at 50.
§ MR. CHAPLINYou have no further information?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe hon. Member asked me how many persons were killed? The answer was that, according to the best information, 50 were killed. We inquired how many British-born subjects were murdered, and we were answered six. We then asked whether any Maltese or other subjects not covered by the phrase British-born subjects, and the reply was that there were two others—Maltese. All that information has already been given to the House.
§ MR. CHAPLINEither the Government have information or have not in- 50 formation on this point. I want to know have the Government ascertained from those with whom they have been in communication that the numbers quoted in the newspapers of the people murdered—amounting to from 200 to 300—is correct or not?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEIt has been reported to us from Alexandria that the number killed was 50.
§ MR. CHAPLINWhen?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThe day on which I stated it to the House—nine or ten days ago, as well as I can remember. [Cries of "No!"] Well, three days after the massacre occurred; and I have no doubt that if there had been reason to modify the number, we should have received the modification.
§ MR. CHAPLINIt is evidently quite useless for us to ask information from the Government, and it appears to me to have come to this—that the influence of the Government has sunk so low in Egypt, that in a country with which we are at peace, and which is within two hours by telegraph from London, Europeans may or may not be murdered by hundreds and the English Government know nothing about it. What we want to know, and what we must insist on knowing, is this—has the Government, apart from the protection given by the Fleet, and which seems in a time of massacre to have been no protection whatever, and apart from the protection given by the Egyptian troops, which could not be sufficient, satisfactory, or reliable protection—has the Government taken any other measures to protect the lives and property of their fellow-countrymen in Egypt; and, if so, will they state what those measures are? If they have not taken such measures, they are deserving of the greatest blame; and, in my opinion, it is their bounden duty, without a moment's loss of time, to repair that terrible omission. I know not, I am sure, what may be the condition of our Army and Navy at the present moment under a Government professing a false and, I think, a foolish system of economy, but who, in reality, I must say, do not practice any economy whatever; but I have been confidently informed—and I believe on pretty good authority—that within something like a month large reductions have been made in our Indian military establishments. ["No, 51 no!"] That is exactly the question I want to know—whether that is so or not? I might have been misinformed, but I am told that nine batteries of Artillery—I think that is the number—four regiments of Cavalry, and no less than 13 regiments of Infantry have recently been disbanded. I want to know if that is true? and I put the question to the Government—to the Prime Minister, to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the Secretary of State for War, or to any other Member who can answer it. I ask if it is correct? and I can only say, if it is correct, a more gratuitous or grosser act of folly at the present time has never been committed in the annals of our military administration. But I presume that even this Government are able to provide troops sufficient to protect the subjects of the Queen in Egypt from massacre and death, and I hope the Government do recognize this duty as absolutely imperative upon them. I trust we shall to-night hear from the Government something in clear and decided language, so that all the world may know that the English Government do recognize and understand still that the interests of England in Egypt are primary and paramount and must remain so; and that, with or without the consent of any other nation, they are determined to so maintain them. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
MR. GLADSTONEUnless, Sir, I very much mistake the general feeling, and what I think I may call the evident sense of the House, it is not their pleasure or desire that I should follow the hon. Member who has just sat down through the long list of great subjects which he has raised in the course of his remarkable oration. But this I am bound to say, that of all the occasions on which this irregular Motion for adjournment has been made, taking into consideration the manner in which it has been supported by the hon. Gentleman, I do not recollect one that appears to me so unfortunate and, I would venture to say, so little discreet. I think, Sir, the hon. Member will have understood that when I speak of the evident sense of the House in this matter, I 52 mean distinctly to refer, not only to the sense of the majority of the House sitting on this side, but to the sense of the great body of those among whom the hon. Member himself sits. The speech of the hon. Gentleman divides itself into two parts, neither of which do I mean to do more than notice in a sentence or two. My hon. Friend near me (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had replied to a Question put to him to the general effect that the allegations implied in the former part of that Question were not on this occasion disputed; and that, with regard to the closing portion of the Question—whether water in adequate quantities could be provided from sources other than the fresh-water canal?—my hon. Friend was ready to give private and personal information to the hon. Gentleman. To the first portion of that answer—that there is no contest about the general statements implied in the first part of the Question—I adhere. But with respect to the readiness expressed by my hon Friend to give personal information to the hon. Member with regard to the other quarters from which a supply might be derived, I hope, after the exhibition of judgment and discretion made by the hon. Member, and after the rejection of the offer of my hon. Friend by the hon. Member—[Mr. CHAPLIN: I did not catch that]—who treated it as so unsatisfactory that it required him to move the adjournment of the House, that my hon. Friend will think himself justified in reconsidering that portion of his answer and in exercising his own discretion in regard to it. With respect to the whole of that portion of the speech of the hon. Member which related to the condition of the Suez Canal, I must say that, while I firmly believe in its innocency of motive, any speech more unfortunate in point of discretion, or more suggestive and descriptive of the means of mischief, I never heard. As to the latter portion of the hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he entered on the wide field of the Egyptian Question, the foreign policy of the Government at large, the state of the Naval and Military establishments of the country, and the condition of those establishments in India, I remarked that he expressed an anxiety that Papers should be laid upon the Table; but I am bound to observe that it seems to me that he, at least, is in very little need 53 of any such. Papers, because without them his mind is made up on every subject. The incapacity and the folly of the Government appear to his eyesight in such glaring colours that they cannot possibly be heightened; and although I trust these Papers will soon be presented to the House, yet it appears to me that it would be a waste of time on the part of the hon. Gentleman to read them. When we do, Sir, enter upon that subject, there will be free and large discussion, without doubt, possibly much variety of opinion; but I must say that I hope the temper in which that subject will be discussed by all portions of this House will be a temper very different from that of the speech of the hon. Member. Sir, it is not possible for us to give countenance to a Motion of this kind, by entering upon the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman. He put to us a great number of Questions, some of which may be perfectly legitimate to address to the Government; but if he desires information in regard to them, he must be content to put them in the usual manner, with, the usual Notice, and according to the Rules, and not in contempt of the Rules of the House. With regard to the immediate subject with which his speech commenced, and which forms the pretext of his Motion for adjournment, I am compelled to adhere to the declaration of my hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and I believe the whole House will see that nothing could be more grossly or culpably imprudent on the part of the Government than for us in this place and at this time to indicate what are our views or what is our state of knowledge as to the security of the supply of water for the Suez Canal. One word only I say in conclusion. The hon. Member referred to a speech of mine delivered four or five years ago, in which I stated, citing from a high authority, that temporary injury or destruction might easily be brought about on the banks of the Suez Canal, and he thinks that that citation of mine is in contradiction to the answer I gave the other day. But the answer I gave was that, according to the intimations of the best engineering authorities and the information in our possession, we were advised that either the destruction of the Suez Canal, or even probable permanent injury to it, was extremely difficult to accomplish. As to what might be done 54 in the way of temporary injury or obstruction, I never spoke a word. I hope the House will not consent to make this Motion an occasion of entering into a desultory debate on a subject of great importance, which deserves to be treated with greater respect and attention, and with a greater prospect of profit than could possibly arise from any countenance given to a Motion like the present.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTESir, I do not enter into the question of the advantages of a Motion for the adjournment of the House at this moment, and upon this question, because I feel there is a difficulty with regard to the disclosure of matters of military importance; but, at the same time, the question was one which I think it was quite natural and reasonable that my hon. Friend should bring forward, and if the answer of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had been different from what it was, undoubtedly I should have said it was our duty, at all risk, to press it. But I understood the hon. Baronet, speaking on behalf of the Government, to say that they were alive to the difficulties of the situation, and that they took upon themselves the responsibility of affirming that there were means of supplying water which they did not think it wise to disclose, but upon which they could rely. Therefore, I think, so far, the answer is one which has put us in a better position upon that important question. It is also something to draw from the Prime Minister even the modified expressions which he has used with regard to his change of opinion as to the value of the Suez Canal. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] I have no doubt that the words that have been used, either written or spoken, on former occasions, can be more or less explained to mean that there is no change; but everybody who has watched the opinions of the Prime Minister upon this subject must feel—although I do not deny that the right hon. Gentleman was one of those who opposed Lord Palmerston's Government, which has been called a Conservative Government, by the way, upon the original proposal for the making of the Canal—that during the discussion that took place during the time the late Government were in Office, the opinions of the Prime Minister were generally felt to be that we were overrating alto- 55 gether the importance of the Canal, and that we should look to some other means of access to India. I am happy to think that that has now been disclaimed. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I did not say so.] Of course, I understand that if the sense of mankind is one way, and the sense of the right hon. Gentleman is the other way, it is mankind who are in the wrong. His opinion has been so far explained, but the error of the world is now corrected. But what I wish to point out is this. We have now had from the Government one or two most important statements—first, that they consider the importance of the Suez Canal established; secondly, that they see their way to the protection of the Canal in the event of an attempt being made to destroy it, by cutting off the supply of water; and thirdly—and the House must never forget what was stated by the right hon. Gentlemen a few days ago, in answer to a Question I put to him—that the Conference which is about to take place excludes any consideration of questions affecting our position and rights as regards the Suez Canal.
MR. GLADSTONEThat, Sir, was not the Question. It was the subject of the Suez Canal. Questions as to the Suez Canal, its neutralization, and all other questions relating to it specially, were not referred to the Conference; but naturally it is impossible to say that in a Conference which is to consider the question of legality and the security of peace in Egypt the condition of the Suez Canal, which, as hon. Members know, is part of Egyptian territory, is to be entirely excluded.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEThat is a very important statement.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEYes, undoubtedly that opens up a field of consideration, but I do not pretend for a moment to enter upon that now. I rather rise to say, with regard to all those matters, and with regard to the question of the policy which Her Majesty's Government has pursued in all this matter, that while we feel that it will be necessary to have a full discussion of it, we are, of course, restrained from going into it until we are in possession of proper information. I do not in the least wish to anticipate what will happen when that information 56 is given to us. With regard to the policy which Her Majesty's Government have pursued, I only say that I hope these Papers will be produced in time for us to discuss that policy while some advantage is to be gained in discussion. But a point we have also to consider is not only what has been the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the past, and in its bearings on the future of this great question, but what is the position of affairs at this moment, and we have a right, I think, to have as full an explanation as the Government can give us. We are naturally anxious to know what has been the exact amount of loss of life and other outrages committed in Alexandria—the loss of life and property during those riots in Alexandria, as to which, I think, more information might be given to us than has been afforded. We are also anxious to know what is the exact condition that we stand in with regard to the safety of life and property at this moment. I give Notice at an early part of the evening that I will ask the Prime Minister these two Questions—From whom we are demanding, or are about to demand, reparation for the loss of life and property that has occurred, and on whom it is that we now rely for the security of life and property? These are important Questions, to which we shall, no doubt, have an answer. They bear very closely on the present state of affairs, and on the present state of this question. If the responsibility of order rests with the Porte or Dervish Pasha, as the Emissary of the Porte, or anyone connected with the Sovereign of Egypt, then, I think, it becomes a very serious question what is the relation of the Porte to the Conference, and whether our hands will be strengthened or weakened when the Porte objects to it. These are questions on which we might and ought to have information, without waiting for Papers of a considerably earlier date, which will be important to enable us to judge of the whole policy of the Government, but which may be long in production, and ought not to stand in the way of full information, and an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are aware of the very great injury that has been done, and is being done, to British interests, as well as life and property, the feeling of great insecurity of life which exists amongst our fellow-subjects in that country, and other 57 matters which are of obvious importance, and upon which. I think we ought to have reassuring statements as soon and as freely as possible.
§ MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he rose somewhat irregularly during the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and he desired to apologize for having done so; but he wished to explain that he did so in response to the challenge made by that hon. Member for any hon. Gentleman to deny the statement he was making as to the danger of the Suez Canal being deprived of fresh water supplies. He simply wished to inform him, and to point out to him, that the use of the Canal was not at all dependent on the supply of fresh water from the Nile. It was a well-known fact that all steamers passing through the Canal had got tanks containing a sufficient supply for the wants of the crews and passengers or men on the stations on the banks. It was also a fact, of which probably the hon. Member was not aware, that in a large tract of country on the West Coast of South America, large communities were supplied with fresh water distilled from the sea water. It would be an easy matter to send out, in five or six days, apparatus to distil a sufficient supply of water from the sea. He was sure if the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had known these facts he would not have ventured to make the assertion he did, or to have wasted the time of the House.
§ MR. M'COANsaid the Suez Canal was as well known as the Rhine, and he had listened with much amusement to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). As, however, the speech of the hon. Member might create a scare about the Canal, he would state some facts within his own personal knowledge. The hon. Member seemed to think that though the Canal connected two seas it was fed by fresh water. The Canal was fed by salt water. The fresh water canal ran from a point near Cairo down to Ismailia, at the centre of the Canal, and supplied the inhabitants of the town. It then ran on to Suez, which it supplied, and it also went to Port Said, where there were tanks which contained several weeks' supply for the whole town. At Ismailia there were tanks which contained several days' supply, and at Suez 58 there was a considerable supply in the tanks, so that if the fresh water canal stopped to-morrow, there would still be a supply in those places for some days. It was true that considerable inconvenience might result from a temporary stoppage of the Canal; but the navigation need not be stopped for one hour, as it was no more dependent for its supply upon the source suggested than the Thames was upon the sea. Therefore, to attempt to raise a scare about the matter was one of the wildest and most childish things he had ever heard. As for the insult that had been offered to the British Crown, in the person of Mr. Cookson, that gentleman did not represent the Crown at all, and the whole idea was little better than a "mare's nest."
SIR GEORGE ELLIOTsaid, he would not occupy the attention of the House more than a few minutes; but he wished to say that he approached that subject with great diffidence. The House was, no doubt, aware that he had spent a great deal of his time in Egypt for the last 15 years. He had taken much interest in the subject of the construction of the Suez Canal, which he saw in its inception, during its construction, and since its completion. He did not share the apprehension of many of his hon. Friends as to the extent of the injury which might result from any interference with the fresh water supply. It had been correctly stated that the Canal was supplied with fresh water by a canal which proceeded from the neighbourhood of Cairo, down to Ismailia, then to Suez, and from Ismailia to Port Said. The population of Port Said was not large, and it need really be no secret, and he did not see why the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs need hesitate to say, that even if the fresh water was cut off, there was no difficulty in getting fresh water from the river which flowed into the sea close to Port Said. Therefore, he did not share any apprehension that could arise of permanent injury being inflicted on the Canal by mischievous persons. It could only be temporary, because it was not carried over large aqueducts, but through the bed of the desert; and if a ship was sunk in the channel they had nothing to do but to find their way round it. No obstruction could be of a permanent character. He thought it was really but fair on all sides that the public mind should not be 59 too much disturbed. There was another point he could speak upon from knowledge, and that was the situation at Alexandria at that moment, which he had no doubt was occupying the minds and attention of the Government as well as other Members of the House. There were very large masses of mixed population in Alexandria, who were now out of employment. They had been very hungry, he knew, and when they had large masses of unfed people, and an army behind them, there was very great peril. He assured them that he should have spoken on this subject if he had had anything to suggest; but the position was peculiar. It was a combination of difficulties. He did not believe Her Majesty's Government, or anybody else, could very well define what ought to be done. They must judge from time to time, and from day to day. In interviews he had had with persons who were taking part in this situation, no longer ago than February, they one and all expressed themselves very much opposed to a French soldier being seen on their soil. Arabi Bey had been allowed to go from step to step, until he had acquired the actual mastery of all authority in Egypt; and if they would keep that steadfastly in their minds, they would be able to see the great difficulty in dealing with this question. Arabi was a Mussulman. Could the Sultan send his soldiers to contest with one representing the interests of Mussulmans? He would find great difficulty in sending his army there, because the jealousy and the feeling of the Mussulmans would be roused against him. In his opinion, the Sultan ought to exercise his authority; but he saw very great difficulty in his doing it. On the other hand, were we to do it, how were we to do it? What were the conditions? Could we set to work to land soldiers? If we did, all our European subjects would be like so many hostages in the hands of the enemy. That was the danger he had seen and felt throughout, and he could not sit and hear the Questions that were put in the House and remain silent. It must be left to the hands of those who were responsible; and if he were asked to advise as to what steps should be taken to deal with the situation, he should prefer to reply in the negative. Having been recently in Egypt, and having heard the views of persons in 60 authority, and those who were endeavouring to upset things, he told the House that the situation was one that he could not tell how to deal with; they must trust to the measures of the Government; whether they blamed them for having got into this mess or not was another thing. He was satisfied the condition of Egypt was enormously improved, and all that was wanted was that we should be able to continue the work we commenced; but in order to do that we must have some civil or military power behind those who were employed to do the work, so that they could not be upset by the interference of the army. He trusted that the Government, in setting their hands to this work, would effectually put it on such a footing, whether by a Conference or otherwise, as to prevent a repetition of this mischievous conduct on the part of Arabi. However much he might disapprove—as he did disapprove—the conduct of the Government in not taking some earlier measures, and in dissenting from instead of approving some of the acts of Arabi Bey—for it was therein that the evil began, and there-from that it had grown to its present dimensions—he had to acknowledge, as he had indicated, that in its present form the difficulty was one for which he had really no solution to offer.
CAPTAIN AYLMERwished to ask whether there was any truth in the statement that a Convention had been concluded between England and Turkey, and approved of by Germany, by which English troops were to take charge of the Suez Canal?
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, that he wished to say a few words in reply to the speeches that had been made on this subject. He could not help contrasting the speech of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway on his left with those which had been made by hon. Members opposite. [Cries of "Order!" and "Spoken!"] He had been charged by hon. Members opposite with having said that which was childish and ridiculous, and with a desire to create a scare. [Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. BAXTERrose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member had the right of reply?
§ MR. SPEAKERAs the hon. Member has made a substantive Motion, he is, according to the Rules of Debate, entitled to a reply.
§ MR. CHAPLINshould have thought that hon. Members opposite would have learnt something with regard to the Rules of the Procedure of that House by this time. He had been charged with saying that which was childish and ridiculous, and with a desire to create a scare; but if that were so, why did not the Government dispel all fears of a scare at once by giving full information on the subject? The hon. Baronet had said that the suggestion he had made was a mischievous one; but was it to be supposed that Arabi Pasha was not aware of what was going on in Europe? The fact was that it was in England, and not in Egypt, that ignorance prevailed. He had put certain Questions to the hon. Baronet which had not been satisfactorily answered, and he begged to give Notice that he should persist in pressing those Questions until they were answered. Hon. Members had the right to know, and it was their duty to know, that measures were being taken for the protection of English subjects in Egypt; and when it was stated in that House that great reductions in the strength of our Army were in contemplation by the Government, it was of the first importance for them to know in what manner Her Majesty's Government intended to provide for the protection of Her Majesty's subjects abroad. ["Hear, hear!" and Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman the Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson) thought fit to interrupt him; but he could tell the hon. Member—[Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERI must remind the hon. Member that he must address himself to the Chair.
§ MR. CHAPLINbegged to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair to the fact that he had been interrupted by the hon. Member for Frome by un-Parliamentary noises. He asked the Government why it was that we had got into this desperate position? and he hoped that before long Ministers would be good enough to make an explanation to the House on the subject. Only one word more. He would commend to the notice of the Government, to the notice of the Premier, and the Members of the Liberal Party generally, some few observations which he was certain they would respect when they knew the source from which they were taken. They referred to delay in pre- 62 senting Papers to Parliament, and they ran—
Appeals were made to the Government to supply Parliament with full and authentic information in lieu of the scanty and unauthentic information which can be got from newspaper sources. But the papers were left unprepared, precious weeks were lost, and the House of Commons has, in the main, been ousted from the legitimate jurisdiction which it exercises over such matters.Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) might recognize the quotation? It was from a very remarkable document called Bulgarian Atrocities, and the language was the language of the present Prime Minister.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of associating his name with the alarms which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. He had himself put some Questions to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, with the view of showing that the effects of the riots in Alexandria had been greatly exaggerated; and he was glad to find that, deplorable as was the loss of life, it had not been a fourth part of what was reported in the sensational paragraphs which had appeared in the newspapers. He was unable to find any report of the slightest weight which put the number of Europeans killed higher than 58 or 60, and he was led to believe that the number of Arabs killed by Europeans was not far short of the same number. When the matter was carefully examined, he believed it would be found that there was nearly as much blame upon the one side as upon the other. Unquestionably, the first murders seemed to have been committed by so-called Europeans. He had seen letters from eye-witnesses of what had taken place, in which it was explained that the bayonet wounds which were found in the bodies of several of the killed were caused by old bayonets which were carried by the Arabs tied to sticks, and were not inflicted by the Egyptian police. The result of Her Majesty's Government determining to set itself in opposition to Arabi Pasha, and to insist, in their so-called Ultimatum, on his being exiled, would lead us into untold complications and great dangers. If they persisted in thus opposing the leading man in Egypt, and the one who was the most popular with the Egyptian people, they would have to deal not only with that people, 63 but with, the entire Mussulman population of the East. In regard to the neutralization of the Suez Canal, the Prime Minister said the European Conference would deal with it in one sense, but that in some other sense it would not do so.
MR. GLADSTONEThe hon. Member has entirely misunderstood me. I have already distinctly stated that no question relating to the Suez Canal has been referred to the Conference.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he had thoroughly appreciated the effect of the language which had been used by the right hon. Gentleman. Doubtless, the Suez Canal—that great engineering marvel of the age—was to be kept outside of the purview of the Conference; but the Suez Canal, as so many miles long and as so many yards broad of Turkish territory, would, according to the words of the right hon. Gentleman, fall within that purview. Upon that point all he had to say was, that the one thing that the British Government and the Imperial Parliament had to pray for was the failure of this Conference, because if the Conference came to a definite conclusion on the subject, and if it assumed a control over the Suez Canal, not many years would elapse before the British Empire would find that no transport of British troops through the Canal would be permitted without the permission of the European Powers. If Her Majesty's Government, therefore, could still break off from this Conference, let them do so, even at the cost of being inconsistent, and of the loss of some prestige; and let them make friends with Turkey or any other Eastern Power rather than run the risk of taking part in this Conference.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHI think, Sir, that the point which the hon. Member who has just sat down has referred to at the end of his speech is of such vital importance that I hope that Her Majesty's Government will lose no time in making it clear to the House and to the world what limits will be placed upon the power of the Conference to deal with the Suez Canal. The right hon. Gentleman the other day, in reply to a Question put to him by my right hon. Friend, as to the limits within which the discussion of the Conference would be confined, and as to whether they would include the Suez Canal, 64 stated most distinctly that they would be confined to the Egyptian Question proper; and, subsequently, the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) said that the neutralization of the Suez Canal would be outside of these limits. That statement, however, has been, to some extent, qualified by what the right hon. Gentleman has told us this evening. Now, Sir, I cannot conceive anything of more importance than this subject, because nothing could be more dangerous to the interests of this country, and, indeed, of the whole world, than that it should be within the power of a majority of the Powers taking part in the Conference to limit, in any way, the use of this high road between England and India. I hope that Her Majesty's Government have been alive to the great importance of this matter; and what I would ask them is this—Have they definitely expressed to the Powers the limits within which they consider the discussion at the Conference must be confined on this point? Have the Powers accepted these limits, and, if so, what are they? I must repeat that I do trust there may be no delay in replying frankly and fully to these Questions.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEHer Majesty's Government have already stated that they deprecate and will do all in their power to pass by and refrain from taking part in debates on Motions for the adjournment of the House, At the same time, I wish to take advantage of the Motion just introduced, in order to reply to the direct appeal that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. I can assure the House, in the most definite terms, that the question of the neutralization of the Suez Canal is entirely outside the purposes for which the Conference meets, the bases for the meeting of which I have already on three occasions described in this House. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asks me to state for himself that the answers previously given by him and by me on former occasions are not to be considered as in the least qualified by anything which has been said.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHWhat I want to know is, whether that view has been communicated to the Powers and accepted by them?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEIt is not in the least necessary to make such 65 a communication. The Powers are perfectly well aware of the opinion of the Government that the question is entirely outside the bases of the meeting of the Conference.
§ MR. NORWOODsaid, he should not have troubled the House if it were not for the references which had been made in the course of the debate to the importance of the Suez Canal in enabling us to maintain our communications with India. He thought that hon. Members had very greatly over-estimated the ultimate importance of the Suez Canal. When the Suez Canal shares were purchased by a former Government, he felt it his duty to state at length what he was about now to state very shortly. He did not for a moment depreciate the great saving in distance by the Suez Canal to our mercantile communication with the East; but he might state to the House that so great had been the engineering advances of the country within the last few years, especially in regard to the speed of vessels intended for ocean purposes, that more than one steamer recently constructed was capable of conveying troops from London to Calcutta, viâ the Cape, in as short a time as the Peninsular and Oriental express service, viâ the Canal. The Canal only allowed the passage of vessels with a draught of about 23 feet. The necessity of storing a large quantity of fuel for the consumption of enormous engines rendered it impossible to construct vessels able to make exceedingly rapid passages and, at the same time, to carry large cargoes of the dimensions necessary, if they were required to go through the Canal. He was prepared to say that such ships as the Arizona, of the New York Line, would make the passage to Calcutta in about 26 days, under steam, while it was well known that the merchant ships of the present day which passed through the Canal took a much longer time. No doubt there would be some advantage in reference to the passage to Bombay in going through the Canal; but the difference was susceptible of being reduced to something like three or four days. He had no desire to depreciate the commercial value of the Suez Canal, nor the views of the Government in their desire to maintain it for the advantage of communicating with India. He was ready to acknowledge that the closing of the Canal, even temporarily, would 66 be a source of great inconvenience and loss to the country; but he maintained that it would not be so heavily felt as some hon. Members were disposed to assume, and that in two years it would be possible to carry the trade of the country by way of the Cape quite as well as it was carried now by way of the Suez Canal. Therefore, on patriotic grounds, and in view of keeping up our prestige in India, he denied that the keeping open of the Suez Canal was of absolute vital importance to this country.
§ Question put, and negatived.